Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Can Academy Shape U.S. Climate Choices?

By Andrew C. Revkin March 31, 2009 9:34 amMarch 31, 2009 9:34 am

The National Academies have been asked by Congress to lay out “America’s Climate Choices,” and have invited several hundred of the country’s preeminent researchers in related fields to a two-day summit that ends Tuesday. The goal is to hone the questions and approaches that four panels will take in coming months. Background on the panels is below.

[UPDATE 4/3: Bill Chameides of Duke rounds up some notable statements at the climate summit on his Green Grok blog, including: “The emissions of the future rich must eventually equal the emissions of today’s poor.” — Rob Socolow, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University]

There are hints that new approaches will be taken by the academies, in finding better ways of conveying its findings and in reaching out to constituencies like cities that are facing sea-level change and farmers that are facing new normal climate zones. There’s an opportunity for input from you and a Climate Choices Facebook group has been created. But important questions were raised on Monday about the effort’s efficacy and intent.

The Academies typically serve Congress, as in this case, or the White House or other customers. The scope of such studies is shaped or constrained by the client. In 2001, President George W. Bush asked for a quick study of the remaining questions related to human-caused climate change, and he got a report very much focused on the persistent uncertainties. While the report included strong statements pointing to a growing human influence on climate, Mr. Bush’s critics asserted that the emphasis on unknowns gave the administration cover to avoid quickly pushing forward with actions to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. That June, Mr. Bush used the findings to justify new research, but pointedly noted that the scientists had not designated an unacceptable level of climate risk. As he put it, “No one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.”

In the vaulted auditorium at the Academies’ marble headquarters, scientists and observers mulled over how to ensure that this report is not only effective at conveying what is known, but also in putting policymakers in a position where they cannot just say thanks and muddle on. (Here’s an interesting observation on whether setting a hard emissions limit is the right approach.)

Attendees were encouraged to pose questions on index cards. Here is what was almost assuredly the most striking question, written with a level of biting precision that spoke of long years of experience advising government and rarely seeing policy reflect science:

Given the 27 N.A.S. studies on climate and related issues available in the lobby and the innumerable plans, blueprints, options, programs, proposals, etc. put forward in recent years…

–Why is another study needed?– How can this be prevented from becoming yet another “more study is needed” tactic?–Or is that the point?

In response, Albert Carnesale, Chancellor emeritus of the University of California, Los Angeles, and chairman of the committee overseeing the effort, echoed comments he made to reporters earlier in the day. The difference, he said, was that this report was aimed at offering “actionable advice.” But the academy’s mandate is to avoid prescriptions.

Do you see a way to break this kind of cycle? Can the nation’s preeminent scientific advisory body craft and communicate advice in a way that sticks?

What's Next

About

By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to pass nine billion. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. Dot Earth was created by Andrew Revkin in October 2007 -- in part with support from a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship -- to explore ways to balance human needs and the planet's limits.